With all the debate raging on the different positions regarding the Papacy, the simple truth of the matter is that the Church has never officially defined what happens in the case of a heretical pope.  There dozens of possible variations of opinions, anywhere from he's immediately gone to he remains Pope and there's no way to get rid of him til he dies, all of which can be legitimately held by Catholics ... so long as it doesn't violate any known Catholic principles that have in fact been taught by the Church.  So, for instance, no legitimate principle can have it that the Pope as Pope can actually be deposed by the Church, since it's taught that there's no higher authority on earth than the Pope and that the Pope cannot be deposed.

With that said, I could hardly care less what opinion you have on this issue.  You're perfectly entitled to it.

BUT ... don't tell me that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council taught errors (or even heresies) to the Universal Church and don't tell me that a legitimate Pope promulgated a Rite of Mass that displeases God and is harmful to faith.  Don't tell me that it's OK for Catholics to go so far as to break communion with the legitimate hierarchy in order to reject this Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  Don't tell me that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have gotten so corrupt that we're almost required to break communion with the Church in order to save our souls.  That is nothing other than the defection of the Catholic Church.

Don't tell you that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council taught errors (or even heresies) to the Universal Church?
Then what was it that taught errors and even heresies to the Universal Church? I like Fr. Hesse view, he likened it to a "Board Meeting" rather than calling it a council. Would saying the Council acting as a Board Meeting taught errors and heresies to the Universal Church be ok with you?

Don't tell you that a legitimate Pope promulgated a Rite of Mass that displeases God and is harmful to faith?
Then what was it the legitimate pope promulgated?

Don't tell you that it's OK for Catholics to go so far as to break communion with the legitimate hierarchy in order to reject this Magisterium and Universal Discipline?
The Church has always taught that all Catholics who reject the magisterium are apostates and will end up in hell if they die in that state. She also teaches to avoid all heretics - including our own shepherds if that be the case - lest we fall into heresy ourselves and end up in hell. What more can the Church say?

Don't tell you that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have gotten so corrupt that we're almost required to break communion with the Church in order to save our souls? And that is nothing other than the defection of the Catholic Church?
Being that the magisterium is in fact, "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith", the magisterium cannot corrupt, not ever, not at all, and certainly, thankfully, the Catholic Church cannot defect even if most of her hierarchy and members do, so no need to be concerned with that.

What exactly is this Universal Discipline you keep talking about?  

Now, if you want to say that 1) V2 can be reconciled with Tradition through some hermeutic of continuity and the New Mass when offered as intended in Latin isn't particularly bad or displeaseing to God, or that 2) Montini was replaced by an imposter who fraudulently promulgated these things, or that 3) Montini was being blackmailed due to his prior ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activities, or that 4) someone else was signing these docuмents, or that 5) Montini was just a holographic projection and the Illuminati controlled everything, or that 6) Cardinal Siri was elected pope and impeded the legitimate election of most of the V2 popes, or that 7) Paul VI had no legitimate authority due to heresy, or at least doubt/suspicion, or had some authority but not teaching authority, or was just materially pope.  I would rather buy the holographic Montini theory than smear the Holy Catholic Church by saying that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass are products of the Church.

So you are willing to buy off on wild, impossible, conspiracy theories but won't stand for discussing reality?  

I wonder how do sedes get to that point? Sedes necessarily must ignore, even condemn real 'factual events based evidence', and go a very long way out of the way to conclude reality is not possible, while at the same time conclude that an answer lies somewhere within unprovable and unproven theories.

With that in mind, using unknowns only means that it will always be impossible to ever know if the answers they come up with are the right ones. Quite the vicious circle to be entangled in.

Don't tell you that a legitimate Pope promulgated a Rite of Mass that displeases God and is harmful to faith?
Then what was it the legitimate pope promulgated?

Nothing.  That's the point, that he wasn't a legitimate Pope ... or else was coerced, blackmailed, etc.

+Lefebvre talked about various scenarios (imposter, drugging, etc.) ... but he didn't raise the issue of possible blackmail or coercion.  Montini was well known for sinful behavior contrary to nature.

What exactly is this Universal Discipline you keep talking about?  

The Mass and Code of Canon Law, dummy, what else?  Didn't think I needed to spell it out.

Nothing.  That's the point, that he wasn't a legitimate Pope ... or else was coerced, blackmailed, etc.

+Lefebvre talked about various scenarios (imposter, drugging, etc.) ... but he didn't raise the issue of possible blackmail or coercion.  Montini was well known for sinful behavior contrary to nature.

Yes, he was a legitimate pope and all the facts pertaining to that reality bears this out. So the question remains, "Then what was it the legitimate pope promulgated?"

You forget about +Lefebvre and stick to trying to find a reliable sede to reference, the good archbishop lived and died opposed to  sedeism and their theories.

If these men are apostate and heretics, to be avoided, then they are OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.  See St. Robert Bellarmine's refutation of Wathenism/Stubbornism on this point.  See also Father Chazal's point about heretics to be avoided.

They are heretics and we are to avoid them. If you declare them to be out of the Church, then all I can say is: "So let it be written, so let it be done!" As for me, I will not declare them to be out of the Church but I will say that they teach heresies and I will have absolutely nothing to do with any of them. See Gal 1:8

See also Titus 3:10

The Mass is not universal nor a discipline at all, it's the liturgy dummy. The Mass is not Universal since it is only of the Latin Rite, the other Rites have their own Mass.

Mass is classified as part of Discipline ... as distinct from Doctrine proper.  And something given just to the Latin Rite is absolutely considered Universal.  You may wish to study some theology before posting stupidities and embarrassing yourself.